YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING, BLAKE. From Blake of Brooklyn: "Trent Dilfer may have been "low performing" in a strict statistical sense with the Ravens in 2000. However, he was high-performing in that he took care of the ball, didn't make bad decisions, and turned the ball over rarely -- exactly the opposite of Grossman, especially in clutch games. Dilfer followed the Ravens' game plan to the letter, always kept the Ravens in a position to win, and the result is the most important statistic of all -- Super Bowl champion.''

I ask you with all due respect: Are you insane? The Ravens went five straight games in the guts of that season without scoring an offensive touchdown, and if not for some team-calming exercises by Brian Billick and Ray Lewis, may have fizzled into an offense-versus-defense feud. Dilfer and the offense were absolutely pathetic most of that season, and the defense carried a team as much as I've ever seen in the 23 years I've covered the NFL. Is going 20 quarters without putting the ball in the end zone "following the gameplan to the letter?''

LET'S GIVE THE MCNABBITES THEIR SAY. From Canio Costanzo of Sawyersville, Pa.: "Once I saw you placed Tony Romo above Donovan McNabb, I immediately stopped reading. Name the big win Romo had last year? Yes, McNabb has injury issues, but Peter, you're smarter that this. Many Eagles fans think you have some kind of vendetta against the Eagles after looking at your list.''

A vendetta against the Eagles -- that's a good one. More often I'm accused of being too pro-Eagle with my endless defenses of Andy Reid, who I still believe to be a top-five coach in the NFL. Here's what I'll say about McNabb: Of course I'd pick him to win a game on opening day this year and feel more comfortable than picking Romo. But after two straight years of missing half the year with injuries (and three out of five), McNabb doesn't get the benefit of the doubt any more, at least from me. He's got to prove his durability. And it's not just me he's got to prove it to. Why do you think Reid took a quarterback in the second round of the draft? Pretty obvious, isn't it? Deep down, he doesn't know if he has a quarterback he can trust to stay on the field.

I HATE THE BEARS, EVIDENTLY. From Jack Nauman of Gibsonville, N.C.: "The anti-Bears bias in your column is just so amazing. Is Grossman a top-10 QB? No way. Is he somewhere between 10 and 20? Yeah. You say wins matter. Last year the Bears won 15 games, beat your beloved Saints and Giants like drums and went to the Super Bowl. Yet you and many other writers constantly tripped over yourselves to bash the Bears. Your pet Romo choked when it counted. Give the Bears a break, take the blinders off and write something fair. Until then your whole rating system is bogus biased crap.''

Grossman played so many poor games last year that, a la Dilfer in 2000, I couldn't justify putting him in the top 20. Maybe he'll be better this year. I don't know. But I'll remind you of an old Parcellsism: I go by what I see. And what I saw of Grossman last year was, basically, a below-average NFL starting quarterback.

DAN DOESN'T LIKE MY DISSING OF BEN EITHER. From Dan of Grantsville, Md.: "Ben Roethlisberger had a poor year last year, but I think that it's hilarious that you have Cutler, Romo, and Young rated above him. What have they done to surpass him? His one bad season completely outweighs his first two great seasons in your mind? It negates his Rookie of the Year award and his 2005 playoff performance? I find that hard to believe. It seems that your list is a little too kind to the flavors of the week. Let's see any of those guys complete a whole season before we put them in the top 15.''

Fair enough. I guess I like what little we all saw of those three young guys last year more than the bigger sample of Roethlisberger, which was pretty flawed.

BURGUNDY, I BELIEVE. From Jon Whittaker of Delray Beach, Fla.: "Matt Schaub over J.P. Losman!? What kind of wine did Dr. Z recommend to you!? You put a guy who's hardly even played (as a starter even) versus a guy who's proven himself to be ever-improving and a very capable NFL quarterback. Not to mention he was the 11th-ranked passer last year in passer ratings. You'll be eating those words this season, Mr. King, just watch.''

I like how I made so many new friends with this week's column.

NOW I'VE SEEN IT ALL: WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME ELI MANNING DEFENDERS IN THE HOUSE. From Kevin of New Jersey (big state, Kevin; where in Jersey?): "Eli Manning at 23? You people in the media are so delusional. This guy's been to the playoffs twice in two years as a starter, has the most passing TDs in the NFC over the past two years, constantly puts his team in a position to win games only to have his defense blow it, deals with serious injuries on both sides of the ball every year, and plays in the biggest NFL market. He also played against the league's toughest schedule last year. Despite all of this, only two QBs in NFL history have thrown for more yards and TDs in their first two seasons as a starter (Peyton Manning and John Elway). He's in some elite company as far as stats go, and he's engineered some of the league's best comebacks in the past two seasons. Give this kid a break, please.''

I will, when he plays to the level of a top player. These rankings are not about any single thing. They're not about who had the most touchdown passes, or who threw for the most yards. They're about the whole package. I really like Eli Manning as a person and I haven't totally lost faith that he can become a top player. But his inaccuracy is startling. He's been a mediocre leader. The Giants will have to see a marked improvement in him this year to know he's their quarterback of the future.

MCNABB. AGAIN. From Smitty of Rockville, Md.: "Do you have something against McNabb? In 'urban slang,' you're what we'd call a hater.''

I have nothing against McNabb -- except I'd like to see him last 16 games this year.

BEN. AGAIN. From Bob Roksandich of Brunswick, Ohio: "You obviously have something against Roethlisberger. You're a guy who votes on who gets in the Hall of Fame, as you so often like to remind use. Maybe this privilege should be rescinded.''

I have nothing against Roethlisberger -- except I'd like to see him be a consistent player.

KONSISE KEVIN. From Kevin of Boston: "I don't have any problems with your QB rankings, except three. One: McNabb behind Romo and Cutler. Two: I completely agree with your Kitna assertion, but I also expect Matt Leinart to produce quite a bit higher for similar reasons (I'd switch Cutler with Leinart). Three: Your intangibles are on a scale from 4-10. Shouldn't Vick get a 0 or 1?''

Excellent last point. Intangibles, though, include leadership and team-building stuff, and his offensive teammates like Vick and follow him enthusiastically.

I'VE TAKEN A CREDIBILITY TUMBLE WITH JOE. From Joe of Niagara Falls, N.Y.: "Your rankings are completely bogus. Quarterbacks are a product of their system. All that matters is winning percentage, just like pitching. Give me a guy like Roethlisberger (when healthy, which he was not last season) over guys like Brees and Palmer any day of the week. Roethlisberger is a modern day Kenny Stabler, a guy who wins ugly, breeds confidence and most importantly, wins rings. All the rest simply doesn't matter. Jack Morris was the same kind of player in baseball. Other guys had better stats, lower ERAs, more strikeouts, but who would you have picked ahead of him to win the big one if you could only choose one pitcher? No one. Just like Tom Brady. Having stiffs and has-beens like McNair, Delhomme, Pennington (almost fell off my chair when I read that one ... ), Cutler, Romo, Kitna and Young ahead of Roethlisberger is a joke. You have managed to lose a lot of credibility with at least one reader.''

From the sounds of this mailbag, I'd say it's more than one reader, Joe.

See you all in three weeks.